We ran across
an article
that exemplifies the problem we see with the continued
hype surrounding ▲SIP. Day after day and year after year,
we continue to hear people talk about SIP as an "emerging" protocol that is
web-centric, simple, and posed to take the industry by storm. Somebody,
please give me a pair of wading boots. Planets and life emerge,
but are we creating a protocol for the next species that occupies this
planet?
Trying to be more objective reporters, we sometimes step in and
comment on such ridiculous misstatements by companies that are clearly
trying to position a technology because—well, it's what they
have to offer. Technology is ever-evolving and, in the case of SIP, it
has been evolving for
11 years now. The
bottom line is that SIP fails to meet market requirements, has been very
slow to progress, and alternatives are already finding their way into
the market. Skype has more traffic than all of the SIP
islands combined. The IAX2 protocol from Digium was created
because there are clear shortcomings with SIP. Lastly, the ITU SG16 is
now collecting requirements for a new, forward-looking multimedia system
called ▲H.325 that will focus on enabling communication between
any kind of device and any kind of application, taking a big step
forward in terms of defining what "multimedia communication" has
historically meant.
Aside from new protocols and networks that have entered the market, a
number of companies are utilizing proprietary protocols within products
in order to provide ▲VoIP functionality right from within web
pages. In fact, if one needs VoIP functionality to operate in a client/server
environment like the web, what is the reason for using SIP when one
controls both the client and the server application? There is really
very little reason, especially if the signaling can be converted into
something on the backend when calls are directed around an enterprise.
Today, ▲H.323 commands about 80% of the international long
distance VoIP minutes, which is an estimated 15.8% or 49.4B minutes of
all international voice communication. Even Skype, perhaps the
single-largest VoIP network, has not caught up with H.323 in terms of
minutes of traffic. (Skype had
13.8B minutes of VoIP traffic in 2006
and held a 4.4% share of the international voice business.)
Where does this leave SIP? People are still working hard to try to make
SIP a success story, even after trying for so many years and gaining so
little market share. Standards bodies including the ITU SG11 and ETSI
TISPAN are trying to position SIP as the ▲NGN protocol and a
replacement for the ▲PSTN systems already deployed. But
perhaps what is not so well understood in the industry is that the
carriers are not likely to provide new, innovative services on top of
SIP. What would be the financial motivator? Will users pay for new
kinds of services and capabilities? What would those services and
capabilities be? Can SIP provide them and would SIP be the right
choice? So far, nothing new or innovative has been delivered and as
financial reality sets in, you will likely see that little actually
changes.
SIP is problematic. It's not simple. Nearly every vendor has a
different interpretation of the protocol, leading some to jokingly call
it the "Subject to Interpretation Protocol." SIP might be a success one
day, but do not expect to get more than basic voice services anytime
soon. Perhaps you might be able to get video conferencing
functionality, but it will not be any better than what you can get with
H.323 today.
The industry should really pause and ask itself: if we are to continue
to invest in multimedia communication, should we not try to reach much
further than the empty promises of SIP?
